thatmormonboy recently uploaded a video to YouTube and asserted 12 points about the LDS Church in order to build bridges between gays and Mormons (see the Church’s website www.mormonsandgays.org for more detailed info on what the LDS Church teaches). I want to comment on many of the points thatmormonboy made, starting with the last point. And the reason I want to comment is because the points he makes are more nuanced than he presents, and much of the miscommunication relates to the nuanced points he doesn’t address: Church doctrine assumes one position and members of the Church can assume other positions.

The purpose of my commentary on the subject is to add my unique perspective as a former member of the LDS Church, gay man, and behavior analyst. My comments shouldn’t be considered exhaustive, but I want to put info out there. Specifically, I want to provide a few additional references on the topic that are often overlooked, discuss clinical limitations that are often misunderstood, and offer a few questions we should be asking to help guide our current understanding and communication on the topic.

thatmormonboy on gays and Mormons and the use of electroshock aversion therapy

So, let’s take a look at the last point thatmormonboy made about gays and Mormons. Here we go.

#12 “…the Mormon Church used to torture gay people like Nazi experimenters by electrocuting them and trying to reorient them as heterosexuals. (This a completely wild exaggeration of what happened).”

As thatmormonboy said, this is a completely wild exaggeration of what happened. I’m not sure why he started with the wildest of exaggerations, but it makes for a decent transition to the history of ethical conduct in research:

The National Research Act gave rise to institutional review boards (IRB) “to assure, both in advance and by periodic review, that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of humans participating as subjects in a research study”

So, much of the research on aversion therapies was happening around the time ethical treatment of human subjects was a major concern worldwide and a developing area, which leads to the next point thatmormonboy made:

“The medical community believed homosexuality was a mental disorder. BYU allowed the practice [of aversion therapy] for a short time and abandoned the practice decades before the APA did.”

Some clarification is in order. The APA came out with an official statement in 2006 that aversion therapy is not to be used to treat homosexuality. This is not the time the practice of aversion therapy slowed. Using Google Scholar, I searched “aversion therapy electroshock homosexuality” by year from 1974 to 1980. Around 1978, publications shifted from implementation of electroshock aversion therapy to discussing ethical implications of the therapy, and by 1980 there are no publications on the use of the therapy to treat homosexuality and only a few publications about the use of the therapy to treat pedophilia. So, I think it’s safe to assume the use of electroshock aversion therapy to treat homosexuality was generally considered unethical by 1980. Like thatmormonboy mentioned, aversion therapy was practiced on gay individuals because homosexuality was considered a disorder in the DSM. It was reclassified as “sexual orientation disturbance” in 1974 and completely removed from the DSM in 1987.

So, what did BYU do regarding aversion therapy and homosexuality? Max Ford McBride, under the direction of Dr. Eugene Thorne, completed his dissertation at BYU in 1976 and studied the effect of electroshock aversion therapy on male arousal to different stimuli (e.g., nude images of men women). A copy of his dissertation is available here. This is the only “publication” I’m aware of. Additional information about the procedures are discussed here in an interview with Dr. Thorne.

a link to Max Ford McBride’s dissertation at BYU on electric or electroshock aversion therapy back in 1976

The major points I’d like to drive home about this research are:

The research was conducted at a time when ethical considerations were important

McBride cited other, less aversive methods investigated to examine the same variables

“…the subject was deprived of liquids for 18 hours, sodium chloride and an oral diuretic was also given. When the subject exhibited appropriate heterosexual responses he was reinforced with a lime drink. Intake of liquid was contingent on heterosexual fantasies and/or progressively greater increases in penile circumference.”

“…a female slide was superimposed on a sexually attractive male slide with a fraction of the light intensity of the male picture… If a satisfactory erectile response occurred the light intensity of each slide was altered, the female slide becoming increasingly brighter until the female slide alone was projected.”

To summarize, these studies, including McBride’s, were extremely limited, and the limitations can be summarized with the following:

(1) increases in penile circumference were limited to stimuli presented in the studies,

(2) no follow ups were conducted to determine the extent to which penile responses generalized to novel stimuli (e.g., actual female genitalia),

(3) maintenance of the effect over extended periods of time was not demonstrated,

(4) penile circumference is not a measure of sexual preference or sexual orientation,

(5) and no subjects reported a change in sexual orientation.

And one important thing to point out about McBride’s study that is almost always overlooked: the primary question he examined was whether the type of stimuli — slides depicting nude/clothed men or women — resulted in different therapeutic outcomes. And guess what he found out?

“Our data did not support the popular notion that the male homosexual is more positively attracted to nude stimuli as opposed to clothed. The present study’s results indicate that homosexual attraction to members of the same sex is more general and not restricted to male nudity.” (And then he went on to mention that they did get better therapeutic results when nude stimuli were used).

So… All this research and effort later, he made an important discovery: gay men aren’t just attracted to naked men, they’re also attracted to clothed men. It seems like a silly discovery now, but I guess it was revolutionary in 1976.

But let’s get back to the parenthetic statement above: part of the reason he conducted his research was to back up the use of nude stimuli. Think about the context. BYU clinicians showing… porn… to BYU students…? And that’s what the study was really about. Finding data to support the use of nude images in aversion therapy:

“Because the therapist will have a scientific rational for utilizing nude stimuli it will help solve the moral and ethical question regrind the use of potentially ‘offensive’ material. Such considerations should be particularly important at religious and privately endowed institutions where the use of nude VCS has been challenged on the grounds that it is offensive and not therapeutically warranted.”

So, a few questions I’d like to raise:

Given less aversive procedures like fading were cited (and used and found to have similar results as shock) and given the experimental question, why even use shock? (And this question is really only important to those who assert BYU owes an apology for the use of shock). Why was using nude v. clothed images a moral and ethical issue but the use of shock v. fading wasn’t?

Given the experimental question and results obtained, why do we focus the discussion on efforts to change sexual orientation and whether orientation can change?

When it comes to current research (on any topic), are we justified to expose people to pain or discomfort in an effort to justify the actions (e.g., using nude male images) of an institution?

If the study was conducted to justify the use of nude images in aversion therapy, is it possible that aversion therapy was being used outside of this one study? Was Dr. Thorne the only one doing this type of work at BYU?

Like this:

I first heard of Jimmy Hales’ coming out video on Facebook from a group of gay Mormons (some former and some current). Comments ranged from “that’s cute” to “whatever” to “meh”. It’s nothing new to those who know what’s going in the gay Mormon world. For us, it’s another gay Mormon testifying to the world he’ll be faithful to a belief system that misrepresents “the gay lifestyle”. For us, it’s another gay Mormon blogger who’ll be in the spotlight for a while and then disappear. Where he ends up, no one knows. In other words, we sense a familiar trepidation when he responds to questions like, “Do you think you can really stay celibate your entire life?”

I was like him at one point in my life. I might have been him if I hadn’t given up so easily on learning the ins and outs of Final Cut. I understand the conflict between wanting to live what your religion teaches you is the better path and what your heart tells you is the happier path. I understand what it feels like to think the only way you’re going to make it as a single, celibate, gay Mormon is to make a name for yourself, to be vociferous proponent of the “Mormon lifestyle” in tacit opposition of the “gay lifestyle”.

According to the LDS (Mormon) Church, same-sex attraction is a trial or test and an “eternal perspective” will help you remain celibate.

To understand where Jimmy is coming from (and where I was coming from a number of years ago), there are a few things you need to understand about Mormon beliefs and Mormon lore. According to Mormon beliefs, being gay is the most difficult “test” you can have in mortal life. Everyone must undergo some form of a test — and come off conquerer — to make it to heaven, and gay Mormons will only make it to heaven if they marry someone of the opposite sex or remain celibate. One gay Mormon put it this way:

Mormons believe acting on same-sex attraction will send you to hell.

According to Mormon lore, there’s this thing called “the gay lifestyle”. It’s all about sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll — a constant party of seduction, sin, and sex. It will destroy other types of families (e.g., “traditional” families) and freedom (e.g., religious freedom). (See the LDS Church’s newsroom for more info). It’s a major assumption of many Mormon comments on social media.

Gay Mormons are caught up in this war of belief and lore. At least I know I was. We were taught to have a negative view of gay relationships. They’re only based on lust. Gays only want to get married because they want to have lots and lots of sex. Gays kiss because they can’t control their appetite for sin. You sense these types of beliefs in this quote from a gay Mormon blogger:

“The first time I saw two guys kissing was an interesting event in my life. I had seen normal kisses before in movies, paintings, photos, and in real life at weddings or just watching my parents… I did a double-take. This wasn’t the kiss of husband and wife when they’ve made covenants to serve God and each other for eternity. This was a passionate kiss between two men who were glorifying the natural man”

These beliefs and lore kept me from a lot of good experiences for a number of years. I thought dating men would lead me down a path of lasciviousness. I was afraid I’d become addicted to sex, that I’d start taking drugs, and that I’d become a drunk. I’d feel empty and hollow for the rest of my life.

To understand some of the blow back Jimmy Hales is getting from a morally decaying world, you have to understand where others of us are coming from. A lot of people, like me, know what Jimmy is missing out on. It’s a difficult thing to be celibate for life. And I’m not talking refraining from sex. I’m talking about refraining from all the experiences of falling in love, breaking up, and marriage. And I think it’s safe to say a lot of people are skeptical about whether this kid has really been in love before and what will happen to his resolve when he falls in love.

At some point I thought more critically of my situation and decided I would give “the gay lifestyle” a shot. The first step was challenging all these beliefs and lore about the gay lifestyle. The basic assumption that drove me was something along the lines of dating just like my straight friends date, follow a similar moral code, and see what happens. And something did happen. The more I dated, the more I realized how false all those beliefs were. I started to feel everything portrayed in chic flick and love songs. I felt love (or as Mormons are prone to say “romantic” love; see this blog post by Mormon Carol Lynn Pearson).

I remember talking to a Mormon friend on the phone shortly after my first kiss. She advised me on all the bad things that will happen because of what I had done. I don’t remember much of what she said because when I thought about that kiss I couldn’t stop thinking about how awesome it was (in a romantic way). Through typical dating experiences, I started to realize more and more that love is love.

Falling in love with Dan led me to my second coming out. It was one thing to come out as a gay Mormon with the resolve to be faithful in the Mormon sense and it was another thing to come out as a gay man in love. Whether Jimmy stays strong to his resolve to stay faithful to his belief system or comes out a second time (as I did), I wish him well.

People say that once you go gay you forget about God or even worse, turn into one of his enemies. A lot of people have said that about me, actually. They say things like, “You’re not the same person anymore” or “Why do you hate Mormons so much?” or “Don’t you have anything positive to say about religion?” The truth is, I only think about religion and God when religious people bring it up, and they usually bring it up in the context of me — because I’m gay — being anti. In other words, knowing nothing about what I actually think about religion or God, in their minds, because I’m gay, I must be anti. Even if I don’t say it, I must be trying to say something negative.

And I’ll admit, it makes me incredibly angry sometimes. It’s sort of like one of those self-fulfilling prophesies: the more you accuse me of being anti-God, the more I feel like I want to prove your point.

Maybe this experience will help clarify. When Dan and I moved into our new apartment I was a little weary of whether we’d fit in and whether we’d be safe. I felt this way because of the mega church being built down the road from our apartment complex. Why would I feel that way? Because religion has become, for me, a symbol of anti-gay activism, or hate rather. When untrue things these are said about me/people of my sexual orientation, it usually has something to do with God.

This was driven home recently when I read about a gay man who went undercover at a convention of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). He shared some pretty unpleasant quotes from the conference, all of which were said in the name of religion. Jokes about gays entering a mosque and never returning, attacks on the stability of same-sex relationships — you get the picture.

The author of the article, like me, gets pretty upset over this rhetoric. Why? Well, here’s what the author had to say:

“I realized that he wasn’t just talking about ‘gay parents’ in the abstract; he was talking about me. Each time Allen accused same-sex couples of sexually abusing their own children, he was questioning my ability to be a good parent one day, too.

“That sensation of feeling personally targeted would stick with me for the rest of the conference.”

But I get it. It’s not really about hating gay people. It’s about loving heterosexual marriage. So when you tear me down you’re just trying to build yourself up. And when you’re accused of hating gay people you just need a good excuse.

And what better excuse can there be than God?

share:

Like this:

Apparently it gets better at BYU, but not better enough. Bloggers have been objecting to the idea that God is okay with gays and what that might mean for his Mormon constituents. It seems the divisive aspect of the discussion is whether being gay is about being gay or whether it’s about having contact with other gays.

The aspect of the discussion that’s difficult for me to understand relates to how it’s possible for different people to honestly report two different “spiritual” experiences as being correct, right, or true. For example, a Baptist minister tells his congregation that God wants them to be Baptists. A Mormon apostle proclaims to the world that God wants everyone to be Mormon. God only lets Baptists into heaven, and God only lets Mormons into heaven. With similar logic, many Mormons argue you can’t have spiritual experiences that contradict what modern Mormon apostles teach: you can’t be gay and feel that a same-sex relationship is the right thing for you can still be okay with God. And yet some gay Mormons report feeling that exact feeling.

An author at The Student Review, “an independent paper revival,” claims the BYU Honor Code restricts religious freedom. He makes a compelling case, quoting Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Joseph Smith, the LDS Church’s founder. I think I might agree but I would describe the Honor Code more as means BYU uses to control behavior rather than restrict freedom. Interesting points were brought up recently in discussions on Facebook. BYU students sign a contract to follow the Honor Code while pursuing their education at BYU, and the Honor Code (per The Student Review) says you have to be in “good standing” to graduate from the university. Education at BYU is, in some sense, subsidized by LDS church tithes and donations; is it fair that someone enters as a Mormon, uses money donors think is going to the Mormon cause, and graduates as something other than a Mormon? I’m not really sure, but I think the author of the article brings up valid points worth discussing and considering.

The author concludes with a quote from Joseph Smith:

“…the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves”

Regardless of whether I agree, I guess I’ll stand by BYU’s (a private institution) right to enforce rules it sees necessary so I can maintain my freedom to worship how, where, or what I may–or not. Is it too much to ask that BYU/the Church, in their efforts to squelch religious freedom at BYU, not over step their bounds to restrict my freedoms?

Years ago I participated in an online discussion forum for members of the LDS Church who “struggle” with “same-sex” or “same-gender attraction”. A member of the discussion forum shared an epiphany with the group that went something like this (not an exact quote):

I finally understand. The reason God has asked his prophets [leaders of the LDS Church] to speak out against same-sex marriage is because if same-sex marriage is allowed then God’s children will have fewer families to be born into.

To set the stage a little, not all faithful members of the LDS Church agree with the movement to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal, and this is particularly true among faithful members of the Church who identify as gay, lesbian, and same-sex or same-gender attracted. I was met with some hostility when I pointed out the epiphany wasn’t logical. I think I was accused of being apostate because I didn’t agree with the logic.

I understand the author was likely speaking of the possibility that if gay marriage becomes legal, then quite possibly some men (gay) and women (lesbian) who would otherwise pursue opposite-sex marriages might pursue same-sex marriages instead. But the argument isn’t really logical because whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, straight couples (at least the ones who can and choose to along with the few accidentals) will continue to have children. In other words, the number of existing straight relationships will probably not increase of decrease when already existing gay relationships are legally recognized. Maybe there’s something I’m not understanding, so please comment if you would like to add to the discussion.

While discussing this on Facebook, someone pointed out the same argument (quoted above). I really like the response a friend made to this argument (minus Katy Perry being spoken of in bad light):

[Kim Kardashian, Sinead O’Connor, and Katy Perry] each publicly married and then publicly divorced in really short time (72 days, 18ish days, and a year or something like that). Those people threaten and destroy the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of families. I’m not sure how you and Dan’s committed relationship affect my relationship with my spouse or theoretical children or the sanctity of my marriage.

Why is this discussion relevant? Dan talked about this in a beautiful post about my family and how relationships are often challenged because of the teaching of principle of tough love. Perhaps “tough love” is destroying families more than my relationship to Dan is destroying families. An anonymous blogger shared his fear that as the Church continues to argue that gay relationships are destroying families, families with a gay member will continue to be destroyed. Perhaps lobbying against certain kinds of families is destroying families. Years ago I participated in a discussion with a family who lost a family member to suicide. The note the family member left suggested he committed suicide due to the Church’s participation in the political process and ensuing discussions that took place within the walls LDS chapels. They were brought to tears when they talked about what it was like when they learned the Church was advocating for Prop. 8 and encouraging members of the Church to get involved. They worried that more gay Mormons would commit suicide. They were also deeply conflicted: they support the leaders of the LDS Church as their spiritual leaders but they also lost a child because of the Church’s involvement.

This discussion is also relevant because Republican presidential candidates are making similar arguments. Freedom to Marry asserted that Perry, Romney, and Gingrich (respectively) “declared that committed couples wanting to marry are part of a war against religion”, adoption agencies would be shut down if they don’t adopt out to same-sex couples, and that it is not possible to comprehend gay families as families so “we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends”. Rick Santorum is the poster child for the Republican party claiming he will forcibly divorce gay married couples.

Maybe the real threats to religious freedom, family, and child birth are not gay couples, but the people fighting against gay couples. In other words, maybe fighting against my freedoms decreases your freedoms: you can still have babies and go to church while Dan and I go to school, pay our bills, and file our (separate-but-equal) tax returns.

Finally, this discussion is relevant because, let’s be honest, the arguments against same-sex marriage aren’t really about adoption rights, the first amendment, or even tradition, as Cary Crall posited in BYU’s Daily Universe (which, of course, was later pulled from the paper). Crall asked what it’s all about and asserted:

The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. We must accept this explanation, along with all its consequences for good or ill on our own relationship with God and his children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting reasons that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.

An argument for traditional biblical marriage?

If it is your belief that God doesn’t want same-sex marriage, come out of the closet and say so. I’m okay with that. You must also realize that even if that is your belief, we live in a pluralistic society; not everyone shares your beliefs and it is not okay to require that everyone uphold your beliefs. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, you can still have babies and go to church.

Like this:

Facebook has been abuzz lately because BYU-I banned skinny jeans. Even Jonathan Jones had something to say about it. When I hung out with Jonathan back stage (I know, right) a few years ago he mention Rexburg (i.e., BYU-I) is one of his favorite places to perform.

Jonathan Jones on the BYU-I skin jean controversy.

And just in case you don’t believe that I’ve hung out back stage with Jonathan Jones, here are some pics. I’m famous.

To my left (I'm in the blue hoodie shirt) is Jonathan Jones. Notice the skinny jeans.

Backstage with Jonathan Jones at Utah State University.

Students were encouraged to have a visit with their Heavenly Father regarding their modesty. I’m okay with the ban because the ban on skinny jeans, turns out, wasn’t really a ban, and let’s be honest: a lot of amusing things have been said and created in response to the commotion. Here are some of my favorites.

And this one from… the testing center…? I’m not sure where it came from but it’s been distributed widely on Facebook.

"...will you please go home and prayerfully visit with your Father in Heaven and recommit to...abide by the Honor Code"?

On a serious note, I find it interesting that none of the new reports have indicated whether men are also being kicked out of testing centers for wearing pants that are too tight for God. Perhaps this is another manifestation of sexism at BYU? As one blogger points out, women shouldn’t be held accountable for the thoughts men have (when they see BYU-I girls wearing skinny jeans).